The shrinking of freedom

In 2009 we have heard a lot of conjecture about what led to financial recession. Some have argued capitalism is inherently greedy and lack of regulation took us to the logical end point of the free market. Meanwhile others have claimed the problem was quite the opposite—too much regulation has led to distortions over the years.

Underpinning both of these views has been a more fundamental question. Is a "free market" a good thing? And perhaps more fundamentally still, what does "freedom" even mean? Cardinal Pell recently delivered the Annual John Graham Lecture on the subject of freedom, arguing that freedom has been reduced to mean autonomy, where people operate as lone agents, making decisions and directing their lives according to their own independently held ethics or moral code. Ultimately, Pell argued, this leads to disastrous consequences for society. He suggested that freedom, properly understood, is quite different to this popular conception.

In a world of vast diversity—differing approaches to life, different values and opinions and wants—what does freedom look like? According to Pell it does not mean everyone should be able to pursue whatever they choose, unencumbered by anyone else's opinion or demands. For one thing, it is simply not possible to be unencumbered by others. As Cardinal Pell stated, "If I have to respect your absolute liberty, then my absolute liberty is, in fact, limited and not absolute: the conflict of liberties has to be resolved." He went on to argue that the idea of "secular autonomy" is eating away at true freedom: "it promises to maximise individual freedom and to make each individual subject only to the values that they alone choose for themselves," an approach ignores the reality of interconnected humanity.

Pell argued that freedom exists, not because it is a good idea we choose to adopt, but because it is an inherent part of being human. Rights that spring from this freedom are not up for negotiation. They are intrinsic to each person and run deeper and longer than any single generation and its ethical fashions. But the very rights that others bear impose restrictions on us. Freedom doesn't give us complete autonomy to live according to our individual whims; rather freedom always exists in the context of relationship, where we must acknowledge our connection and responsibility to one another. True freedom references a greater good than our own desires.

When facing a subject such as the financial recession, Cardinal Pell's description of freedom suggests that the debate has not been getting to the heart of the problem. The question is not simply about regulation versus openness in the market, but a question of what vision the market is serving and a question of the conduct and morality of the people who engage in the market. "The risk of relying ever more heavily on regulation is that we engender an idea that simply following the legal rules means we have acted responsibly. If the only limits to freedom are those we have created for ourselves—whether individually or through the public institutions—then freedom has collapsed into autonomy."

Regulation cannot save us and neither can the elimination of all constraints. A good system alone is not a solution to the problem of autonomy. Real freedom, with its connections and constraints, offers so much more, if we have the wisdom to embrace it.

• Listen to Cardinal Pell deliver the Annual John Graham Lecture, "Free for All: Negotiating freedom in a world of individuals."

Can business be ethical?

The reputation of big business has received a few blows over the past year or so, particularly when stories emerge of businesses marketing unnecessary products to impoverished communities in Africa, or when we hear about huge executive bonuses in the midst of companies laying off staff. But the solution is not to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Business is a crucial part of how our society works and it offers much that is good.

In an article that takes the form of a letter to his daughter, business consultant Tony Golsby-Smith shows that business throughout the ages has had inherent value—work is an important part of life and should be something that allows people to thrive and be creative.

Golsby-Smith suggested that people need to be able to see the purpose in what they are doing and to behave not as cogs in a machine but as creative people with authority in what they do. He says, "We can articulate a very different kind of relationship between the organisation and the individual, than the industrial model of a machine utilising people as resources, with the only goal of making shareholders as wealthy as possible. Instead we can see there is a symbiotic relationship between the organisation and the individual, where the shared goal is to harness human creativity and help the world to thrive, not just turn a profit."

When people are able to take responsibility for the work that they are involved in, not only does the organisation or company benefit, but the work becomes more meaningful. Because its value is recognised, rather than condemning big businesses for what they lack, we need to strive to build and appreciate business for all that it can be—organisations that are good for people and for the wider world.

• Read the full article, Can Business be Ethical? A letter to my daughter Sarah

Paying for Dads

In the midst of the 2025 Taskforce urging us to curb Government spending, the Families Commission has called for a policy with the opposite effect—an extension of paid parental leave to include four weeks for dads. While Dads spending time with their children is crucial, the policy is unaffordable and promotes the idea that we value something by putting a dollar figure on it—not a healthy attitude to parenting.

Paying for the policy would be a major problem. Economic forecasts are bleak and the 2025 Taskforce advises strongly that "Government spending can and should be substantially reduced as a share of GDP, and needs to be reduced as part of having any realistic hope of matching Australian living standards by 2025." If we overstrain the economy, there will be an impact on New Zealand family life.

Fatherhood is extremely important. Dads have a unique and crucial role to play in their children's lives, a role that is valuable no matter what government policy says. While paying for parental leave might sound nice at one level, policies like this reduce everything down to dollars and cents. Worse, they imply that we should do what we'll get paid for.

Parenting is inherently about people, not money, and about sacrifice. It involves personal and financial cost and it always will. True, some families will need assistance, but general leave provisions are not directed to them. Instead of introducing such blunt and undiscriminating changes we need to celebrate the healthy sacrifice that is a natural part of being a parent.

• Read the Families Commission's media release "Father's need paid parental leave too."